Two articles condemned the impact the Shard will have on London and the borough of Southwark. Simon Jenkins believes it has "slashed the face" of the city (The Shard has slashed the face of London for ever, 4 July), and Aditya Chakrabortty says it's a "metaphor for how the capital is being transformed for the worse" (Expensive, off-limits and owned by foreign investors, 26 June).

Both writers appear to have missed the point of how important the building is to the place where it is located. For us – people living and working in Southwark – the Shard is not just a tall building. It has regenerated London Bridge, brought new jobs, and symbolises the emergence of south London as a part of the capital that punches at its weight. That's why, contrary to what your columnists have written, the Shard was never opposed by Southwark. In fact, quite the opposite was true – only 11 objections were received from residents, which is unheard of for a development of this scale.

The Shard replaced a tired 1970s office block, and rises narrowly over London Bridge station's concourse – a concourse its development has helped to rebuild. These are hardly elysian fields being blighted by development – not the Blackheath that Jenkins warns "the Shard's apologists" would choose to build over , but a worn corner of central London that desperately needed investment. It needed and has received investment, not only in terms of physical improvements to the station and local built environment, but in human capital and the local community.

As such, even before opening, the Shard has both provided construction jobs for local residents and £5m of vocational training for young people. Once it is open and fully operational it will bring 12,500 new jobs to the area, not all of them "intended for hedge funds and financiers" as Chakrabortty suggests, but for people from every walk of life.

A smaller, less imaginative scheme would not have brought these jobs or this investment. Nor would it have announced the long-overdue rebalancing of London's economy. For too long south London had been used as a cut-price warehouse and dormitory, servicing the rest of the city. Until the end of the 1960s docks, wharves and warehouses were the hallmark of north Southwark. While they provided employment for generations of dockers, they were low-skilled jobs in an unmixed economy. With the closure of the upriver docks at the end of the 1960s, swaths of north Southwark were left derelict and undeveloped, while the only thing that grew was unemployment. Now, finally, business and investors have woken up to the fact that Southwark is perfectly located, and the people who live and work here will reap the benefits.

I have little sympathy for Jenkins when he says the Shard has spoiled his views from "Parliament and Primrose hills". The view of it from Bermondsey and Peckham is one that represents training and job opportunities previously denied, and the hope of a better future.